Supreme Court Issues Notice On Christian Michel James' Plea Against Extradition Treaty Clause
The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea filed by AgustaWestland VVIP chopper scam accused Christian Michel James against the Delhi High Court's dismissal of his petition challenging Article 17 of the 1999 India-UAE extradition treaty.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order after hearing Advocate Aljo K Joseph. The matter has been listed before a bench led by Justice Vikram Nath.
To recap, Michel was extradited to India from Dubai under the India-UAE treaty in December 2018. He argued before the High Court that ordinarily, a requesting State (in this case India) can only prosecute an extradited person for offences for which extradition is sought. However, Article 17 enables the Indian government to prosecute him even for offences "connected therewith".
Vide the impugned order, the High Court rejected his challenge to the Treaty and also upheld a trial court order rejecting his application seeking release from prison on the ground that he has undergone the maximum punishment of 7 years.
It found no conflict between Section 21 of the Extradition Act and Article 17 of the Treaty in question. The court added that the scope of prosecution of Michel must be understood in light of the extradition decree and the underlying factual basis considered by the extraditing court.
"It is evident from the extradition decree passed by the Dubai Court that the petitioner was extradited for facing trial for offences which are directly arising from the factual background in the present case, thereby indicating that the prosecution of the petitioner falls within the scope of Article 17 of the Treaty," the Court said.
Aggrieved, Michel approached the Supreme Court. In his challenge to the High Court order, Michel argues that:
- The doctrine of specialty was violated in his case and the High Court findings gave precedence to the Treaty over the law enacted by Parliament;
- The High Court failed to appreciate that the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in Daya Singh Lahoriya's case (regarding prosecution of a fugitive only for offenses mentioned in extradition decree) was law-centric, not Treaty-specific;
- Article 21 guarantees personal liberty of individuals of individuals, including foreigners, but his liberty has been curtailed due to detention despite completion of maximum sentence;
- His extradition was only for offenses mentioned in the extradition decree and the maximum sentence in that regard has been undergone. Moreover, the prosecuting agencies have not obtained permission to prosecute him for any other offense.
Michel was granted bail by the Supreme Court in the CBI case related to the scam on February 18, 2025, and later bail by the Delhi High Court in the ED case on March 4, 2025. However, he has remained in jail due to non-fulfilment of bail conditions.
He is termed as a 'Middleman' for the alleged illegal transactions that took place in the VVIP chopper scam. The CBI has alleged that there was an estimated loss of Euro 398.21 million (about 2666 Crore) to the exchequer in the deal that was signed on February 8, 2010 for the supply of VVIP choppers worth Euro 556.262 million. ED filed a prosecution complaint against Michel in June, 2016, alleging that he had received EUR 30 million (about Rs 225 crore) from AgustaWestland.
Advs Aljo Joseph, Sriram Parakkat and MS Vishnu Shankar represent the petitioner.
Case Title: CHRISTIAN MICHEL JAMES v. UNION OF INDIA, SLP(Crl) No. 7103/2026